Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="the Jester" data-source="post: 4651859" data-attributes="member: 1210">I've run warfare in my games over the years on quite a few occasions, using every level of pc involvement from "it's offscreen in the background, the pcs aren't involved" to "here are your troop units, let's do some wargaming."In the past I've used 1e and 2e Battlesystem rules, but I just got done running a series of games wherein the pcs were besieged. The games leading up to it had them freeing the awesome general from prison in the Black Tower (he was framed!) and doing various things to prep. Then we had several sessions that involved a mix of "scenarios" (unit-level combat), "encounters" (standard pc-level combat) and skill challenges. (In case it isn't obvious, this is a 4e campaign.)We used a system I tweaked out of the basic 4e ruleset. Each unit was approx. 20 individuals; I tweaked the numbers a bit to make damage more average and to speed up combat, and came up with a bunch of ways to allow the pcs to have a meaningful impact on the events and the actions of their troops. The pcs fought a holding action against the first few waves of oncoming troops, used a trapped gorge to inflict massive casualties, retreated to defend the walls and their food sources, dealt with miners and sappers, etc. It was awesome. I used a bastardized version of the victory point system in 3e's Heroes of Battle to rate their success after the last scenario concluded, and that determined how long the siege lasted. We consciously abstracted a lot of the battle; the battle on the walls lasted 1.2 sessions, but it represented action on the walls for the entire siege. It was really fun, and the thing that makes me happiest about it was that the guy in our group who I thought was least likely to enjoy the wargaming elements really, really dug it.</blockquote>

Verification